On Friday, Cole County Circuit Judge Christopher Limbaugh ruled that the proposed Amendment 3 should be removed from the November ballot because it does not specify which specific anti-abortion laws it would repeal. (Advocates say that exact laws for repeal would be determined by future lawsuits.)
Why does a constitutional amendment need to specify what laws it repeals? I don’t believe there is any legal merit to that. That would only ever apply to anything within the constitution itself (e.g. 21st US Constitutional Amendment). Any contradictory laws found after the ratification of an amendment would then be declared unconstitutional by the legislature or judicial system and removed that way.
“It’s all about letting the states decide!”
“No, not like THAT!!!”
The ruling is that constitutional amendments, as defined by their state constitution, must define which laws are being requested to change or delete. So that means citizens can’t ADD rights to the constitution, only remove rights or remove a prohibition to a right. I would be surprised if any other ballot initiative had been ruled invalid for this reason in the past, since it seems so intentionally arbitrary.
That said, It feels like it would be easy to find the laws that need to be red-lined to make this valid.
They didn’t do this when Missouri legalized marijuana. Maybe they secretly know it won’t hold up and are just hoping no one with lots of money takes them to court. All they have to do is stall until it misses the deadline.
